All posts by Paul J. McAndrew, Jr.

firefighter.jpg

Yes, Monetary Benefits Are Available For Injured Volunteer Firefighters

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

I recently read the news about a benefit fundraiser being held for the widow of a Long Island volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty when the floor he was on during a fire collapsed. The volunteer, only 43 year old, left behind a widow and a 19-year-old daughter.  He had served his community for 17 years as a volunteer and in addition, worked for the Nassau County Public Workers Department. This tragedy once again reminds us of the dangers of the firefighting profession.

Most New York City residents are protected by a paid force of brave men and women who are employed by the City. The Fire Department of New York is the largest municipal fire department in the United States, employing more than 10,000 uniformed firefighters. I am proud to say that my brother Danny serves as a Lieutenant in the FDNY, and my brother Bob and my dad are both retired from the force.   

There are still nine volunteer fire companies left in New York City that respond to calls in their neighborhoods; more than half of them are located in Queens – West Hamilton Beach, Broad Channel and the Rockaways. As these men and women are not compensated for their service to their communities, most of them have paying jobs elsewhere. However, they are still entitled to benefits if they are ever injured on the job. The New York State Workers’ Compensation Law provides benefits for those volunteers injured in the “line of duty” or engaged in activities pursuant to orders or authorization. These duties include, but are not limited to, participation in fire drills; travel to and from fire calls or authorized activities; firehouse duties; property inspections; attendance at fire instruction and training; and authorized drills, parades, funerals, reviews or tournaments. An “injury” includes any disablement of a volunteer firefighter that results from services performed in the line of duty and any disease that may arise from an injury.    

Monetary benefits include payments for loss of earning capacity up to $400 per week, death benefits to surviving spouse and/or minor children up to $800 per week, and schedule loss-of-use awards based upon loss of function to a limb, loss of vision, loss of hearing, and facial disfigurements. Additional monetary awards are given to cover funeral expenses. Furthermore, volunteer members are entitled to receive necessary medical care for treatment and recovery from their disabilities. Notice must be given to the proper party within 90 days of the incident, and claims must be filed within two years of the accident or death. 

In many instances the monetary awards are inadequate to properly compensate an injured volunteer or a surviving spouse or child of a hero. The fact that a fundraiser is even necessary for the family of the firefighter who was killed in Long Island is inconceivable. While it is clear that Volunteer Firefighter benefits will never truly compensate for those who are injured or killed on the job, the knowledge that there are benefits available will hopefully ease some of the financial strains for those in our community who serve. I saw a wonderful quote recently that said “volunteering is the ultimate exercise in democracy. You vote in elections once a year, but when you volunteer, you vote every day about the kind of community you want to live in.” So to those who serve, I am truly grateful, and to the family of fallen hero Joseph Sanford, Jr.  – his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.   

hockey_concussion.JPG

Are Concussions Worth the Risk for Hockey Players?

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

Professional hockey, much like football, is considered to be a dangerous, high contact sport. With recent news of San Francisco 49er’s linebacker Chris Borland’s decision to retire at age 24 due to concussions, a lot of NHL players are feeling pressure to step-back and reevaluate if game-related concussions are worth the risk to their long-term health.

Carolina Hurricane’s 22 year-old forward Jeff Skinner has been side-lined three times for concussions since his first season in 2010-2011. Skinner’s teammate Brad Malone, a 25 year-old forward, considers his multiple concussions to be just “situations” and has made the decision to keep playing despite the risk of acquiring a long-term brain injury. According to the News & Observer, Malone stated, “If that situation was affecting my life at home and the people around me, then I think that’s when I sit down and sort of reevaluate.”

The danger of having too many concussions is that they can cause players to develop Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). CTE is a progressive degenerative disease of the brain that is caused by repetitive brain injuries, and according to Sportsmd.com CTE can cause symptoms and behaviors similar to Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. CTE is considered to be the only preventable form of dementia. Hockey players are faced with a serious issue: continue to play professionally or quit the sport for the sake of future quality of life.

Original post in the News and Observer by Chip Alexander 3/31/15

Read more about CTE here: http://www.sportsmd.com/concussions-head-injuries/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy-cte-2/

Jail.jpg

Contracting Scams Result in Jail Time and Fines

Today’s post comes from guest author Kit Case, from Causey Law Firm.

Seattle – A contractor who scammed two building owners has been sentenced to four months in King County Jail and ordered to pay more than $25,000 in restitution.

Collin Patrick Chester, 43, pled guilty in December 2014 to two felony charges of first-degree theft. Superior Court Judge Theresa B. Doyle ordered Chester into custody immediately after sentencing March 27 and filed a 10-year no-contact order with the owners or buildings.

“Justice for consumers is important,” said Elizabeth Smith, assistant director of the Fraud Prevention & Labor Standards Program for the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. “This is sadly another example of someone trying to take advantage of people who simply wanted to get needed work accomplished.”

In one case, in the spring of 2012, the owner of the Quality Inn on Maple Valley Highway in Renton agreed to pay Chester $70,000 to replace the roof. The only work Chester did was to hire an unregistered subcontractor who tore off a portion of the roof and then abandoned the job because he was not paid, leaving an open roof that resulted in water damage to the hotel when it rained.

In the second case, Chester was contracted to build a new roof for a building in Shoreline. He said he would do the work for $16,000, but no work occurred from May to September 2013, when it was supposed to take place.

In both cases, the building owners paid for some of the work in advance and faced additional expenses to complete the projects. Chester’s previous criminal history included three cases of contracting without a license, a gross misdemeanor.

L&I can help building owners hire smart. Go online to www.protectmyhome.net to verify contractor registration, report fraud, and find agency representatives at many home shows around the state. Upcoming events include the Spokane SHBA Premier Home Improvement Show April 10 – 12, at the Big Home & Garden Show April 18 – 19 in Lacey, and at the Clark County Home & Garden Idea Fair in Ridgefield, April 24 – 26.

inhaler.jpg

Is Your Job Causing Asthma or Making It Worse?

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

The spring allergy season that also causes asthma concerns is upon us, and this is especially evident in the Great Plains, where the wind blows dust and pollen throughout most days. 

A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that 16 percent of American adults had asthma that was either caused or aggravated by conditions at work. According to the National Institutes of Health, workers who are regularly exposed to chemicals and dust, such as millers, bakers, woodworkers and farm workers, are most vulnerable to work-related asthma. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America states that adults lose 14 million work days per year because of asthma. 

In terms of Nebraska, this means that approximately 134,400 days of work are missed in Nebraska due to work-related asthma. In Iowa, that number is closer to 224,000 days of work that are missed because of work-related asthma. This is an estimate of missed days nationwide in proportion to the population of the states. 

Workers should make sure their employers are providing safety equipment that protects against respiratory injury. Employees should make sure they are carrying inhalers in the workplace if they have been prescribed them by a doctor for asthma. 

But if a worker suspects their work is causing breathing problems or making pre-existing asthma worse, they should report that as a workers’ compensation injury and seek treatment with a specialist in treating breathing conditions. Medical bills for treating asthma should be covered like any other work injury, and any lost time because of work-related asthma should entitle an employee to temporary disability for lost time and permanent disability for permanent breathing problems. 

Work-related asthma would also be a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under similar state laws. Further, an employee has protection against retaliation under most states’ laws, including Nebraska and Iowa, as well as under federal law, for reporting work conditions that cause asthma and/or from claiming workers’ compensation benefits for work-related asthma.

scott_walker.jpg

Alternatives to Workers’ Comp: Paranoia or Possibility

Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.

I joined a national organization of lawyers representing injured workers (the Work Injury Law and Advocacy Group) twenty years ago when it was first formed. Then, I heard horror stories about legislators messing with an otherwise stable workers’ compensation system after every election cycle. My colleagues in other states were constantly fighting battles over workers’ compensation “deform.” 

I thought we were insulated in Wisconsin because we had a workers’ compensation advisory council composed of labor and management who every two years fought out a compromise bill and submitted it to the legislature, which automatically rubber-stamped the proposed bill without changes. That changed in Wisconsin in 2014. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Republican legislature rejected the “agreed upon” bill proposed by the workers’ compensation advisory council, despite the approval of the bill by management members.

Governor Scott Walker’s most recent budget contains a provision to dismantle the workers’ compensation system as we know it. Those of us representing injured workers (and those rational members on the management side) are busy lobbying to remove the workers’ compensation dismantling provisions from the budget.

It is no secret that many major corporations dislike workers’ compensation, despite statistics indicating premiums are at their lowest for employers, and profits at their highest for insurers. However, nearly two dozen major corporations including Wal-Mart, Nordstrom’s and Safeway are behind a multi-state lobbying effort to make it harder for workers hurt on the job to collect workers’ compensation benefits. The companies have financed a lobbying group the Association for Responsible Alternatives to Workers’ Compensation (ARAWC) that has already helped write legislation designed to have employers “opt out” of a State workers’ compensation system. ARAWC has already helped write legislation in Tennessee. That group’s executive director Richard Evans told an insurance journal in November that the corporations ultimately want to change workers’ compensation laws in all fifty states. Lowe’s, Macy’s, Kohl’s, SYSCO Food Services, and several insurance companies are also part of the effort. The mission of ARAWC is to pass laws allowing private employers to opt out of the traditional workers’ compensation plans that almost every state requires businesses to carry. Employers who opt out would still be compelled to purchase workers’ compensation plans, but would be allowed to write their own rules governing when, for how long, and for which reasons an injured employee can receive medical benefits and wages. Two states, Texas and Oklahoma, already allow employers to opt out of State-mandated workers’ comp. In that state, for example, Wal-Mart has written a plan that allows the company to select the physician and the arbitration company that hears disputes. A 2012 survey of Texas companies with private plans found that less half the companies offered benefits to seriously injured employees or the families of workers who died in workplace accidents. 

Oklahoma passed an opt out measure in January 2014 and the oil and gas industry along with major retailers such as Hobby Lobby pushed hard for the change. ARAWC wants to take that Texas and Oklahoma model nationwide. Seeing the workers’ compensation provision in Wisconsin’s budget bill as part of this overall “scheme” may seem paranoid, but the history of recent “deform” legislation suggest the connection is at least a possibility. 

See the complete article at http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/arawc-walmart-campaign-against-workers-compensation.

Image_of_Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire_on_March_25_-_1911.jpg

Measuring Our Progress Since The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.

As an attorney who practices in the field of Workers’ Compensation, there are some events that are seminal in the history of workplace safety. One of those events was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which occurred on March 25, 2011. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was one of the largest factories in New York and employed 500 mostly Italian and Jewish immigrant women between the ages of 13 and 23.

These women worked long hours for low wages in this cramped sweatshop at sewing machines to produce women’s blouses, known in those days as shirtwaists. In order to protect themselves from their claim of thefts by the workers, the factory owners would lock the doors to one of the stairways leading to the street. While the union movement in New York was very strong and some of the workers had joined the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, the factory itself was a non-union shop; many believed the owners would lock their doors to keep organizers out. Whatever the reason, locking those doors had devastating effects. 

On that fateful day in March, a fire broke out that was fueled by thousands of pounds of fabric. Many were able to escape to the roof and then to adjoining buildings. Unfortunately for those on the ninth floor, there was very little means of escape. The elevator proved inadequate as it was only able to accommodate 12 people at a time, and the operator was only able to make four trips before it broke down totally. Bodies of many of the workers were found at the bottom of locked stairwells or in the elevator shaft when they tried to escape. The fire escape was flimsy and when it became overloaded with panicked women, it broke and sent dozens to their death. Those trapped in the factory by the fire were left with the agonizing choice of jumping to their deaths or being burned alive. Many chose to jump. Bystanders recounted stories of seeing victims kiss each other or hold hands as they jumped two and three at a time; they described the horrific thud as bodies landed on the stone streets below. When the final tally was taken, 146 people had perished. The catastrophe sent shockwaves throughout New York City and the immigrant communities of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, where families struggled to recognize the charred remains of their loved ones in makeshift morgues. 

On March 24, 1911, the New York Court of Appeals declared the state’s compulsory Workers’ Compensation law unconstitutional. The next day, 146 people were dead from that Triangle Shirtwaist fire. With no Workers’ Compensation system in place, family members and dependents had to turn to the courts in an attempt to force Triangle to compensate the injured and the families of the deceased. A civil suit brought by 23 victims’ families against the owners netted a whopping $75 in damages per victim! New Yorkers were appalled and angry at the greed and negligence of the owners and managers. 

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire was a preventable tragedy caused by unsafe work conditions and was a catalyst for change. New York finally adopted a Workers’ Compensation law in 1913. This law was intended to protect workers from unsafe working conditions and afford them with wage replacement benefits and medical treatment in exchange for giving up their right to sue. Unfortunately, we see an erosion of many of these benefits under the guise of reform, while insurance companies have made record profits. This month, while we acknowledge this grim anniversary, we need to make sure that these women’s deaths were not in vain. Let us never forget the reason Workers’ Compensation laws were enacted, and let’s be sure the system is not watered down to the point that injured workers and their families go back to getting $75 for a preventable death.

  

Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717. 

Gawande_atul_download_4.jpg

Being Mortal, a book about end-of-life medical care, by Atul Gawande

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

All of us need to talk honestly about matters that concern us. Talking honestly about end-of-life choices is essential, and Atul Gawande (a surgeon in Boston) makes that clear in his book Being Mortal. Are the desperate surgical procedures and expensive treatments, which usually reduce the quality of life of a terminally ill patient, worth it? If discussed openly and honestly early in the process, would the patient choose to die in a hospital or at home with his family under the care of hospice?

Once one becomes seriously ill, even at an early age, perceptions change. What becomes important are the people in your life. The same is true as you approach death as an older person, and those last few months or years can be highlights of dignity, or they can turn into medical nightmares. “It’s perception, not age, that matters most.”

Dr. Gawande gives examples including the death of his own father, to illustrate different scenarios and notes that, “25% of all Medicare spending is for the 5% of patients who are in their final year of life, and most of that money goes for care in their last couple of months and is of little apparent benefit.” He readily admits doctors don’t ask the hard questions and he is changing his ways as a surgeon, but he wants the patient and family to get there first. This book is worth reading in order to understand, to contemplate, and to help make wise decisions about end-of-life issues.

For a more in-depth analysis, go to NPR Frontline.

Injured Texas worker awarded $5.3 million

Today’s post comes from guest author Leonard Jernigan, from The Jernigan Law Firm.

In April of 2007 Charles Robison, a worker for Texas-based West Star Transportation, suffered a traumatic brain injury after falling headfirst off an unevenly loaded flatbed trailer. At the time of the accident, West Star had “opted-out” of the Texas workers’ compensation system and forfeited its protection against negligence law suits by its employees.

 Mr. Robison filed a lawsuit in January of 2009 against his employer, and a jury found that West Star’s negligence caused Mr. Robison’s injuries.  He was awarded $5.3 million dollars in damages.

The judgment included: “$3.7 million for Mr. Robison’s past and future medical care, $1 million for past and future physical pain and mental anguish and $400,000 for Ms. Robison’s past and future loss of consortium, as well as additional payments for Mr. Robison’s loss of earning capacity and physical impairment.”

On January 23, 2015 a three-judge panel in the Texas 7th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the jury’s decision. Employers who want to be allowed to “opt-out” of workers’ compensation programs need to understand that one of the great benefits to the employer under workers’ compensation is the protection against civil law suits.

 

Original post by Sheena Harrison, writer for www.businessinsurance.com

http://bit.ly/1v4XYkK